• MNByChoice@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 days ago

    They are a bit rather literalist, but they have a point.

    Only “do less and consume less resources” won’t end suffering. It will limit certain kinds of suffering.

    Feeding those without enough healthy food may require more resources (many reasons people don’t have enough food, sometimes those reasons are “war”.)

    There are other kinds of suffering as well. Bad governments abusing people. Weak governments not protecting people. Not enough medical care, or the wrong kind of medical care. Unsafe neighborhoods, and unsafe homes.

    Undoubtedly, there are hundreds of ways humans are suffering right now that I am not touching on.

    • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      I was more thinking of the PETA-style can’t-harm-one-animal-hair issue. The people who get upset if you trap rats that are eating native birds; that kind of thing.

      In rough order of plausibility:

      • End human-caused human suffering

      • End human-caused human-or-animal suffering

      • End anything-caused human suffering

      • End anything-caused human-or-animal suffering